pro_create_order

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the preview/confirm two-step mutation flow, clarifies that market orders execute immediately, and documents the order status enum (open/filled/cancelled). The destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations are consistent; no contradiction. This is rich, agent-relevant behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary type-specific requirements, status enum, and confirm behavior. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary and partially repeats schema content, but every sentence contributes useful operational context for a complex mutation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex order-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers return value, order types and their parameter requirements, execution behavior, status meanings, and the critical confirm/preview workflow. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without missing major behavioral steps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds some cross-parameter semantics by noting price is required for limit/stop-limit and stop_price is required for stop-limit, but this largely mirrors the schema descriptions. It does not compensate with substantially new parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Limit/Market/Stop order in PRO Trading'), specifies return value ('Returns order ID'), and distinguishes this creation tool from the sibling status/query tools like pro_get_open_orders and pro_cancel_order. The order type list adds further precision.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: it explains when each order type is appropriate, mentions the two-phase confirm flow, and explicitly routes status checking to pro_get_open_orders. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name cancellation alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.